Conversation with Mother
(Page 9 of 11)
September/October 1986
By Lester Brown
Of course, one of the things that would facilitate the adoption of economic reforms by Russia would be a relaxation of its arms race with the United States. If the Soviet Union did go ahead with economic reforms not unlike those that China has adopted, then this, too, could lead to changes in the political structure and in the governmental philosophy. With this sort of ideological softening, we might well find that reversing the trend of the past generation toward worldwide militarization could occur fairly rapidly.
RELATED CONTENT
With a few simple tools and these step-by-step instructions from an expert mechanic, you can change...
Hovering on extinction's edge, West Africa's last giraffes make a surprising comeback...
The natural cycle of rainfall and evaporation is our earth's method of cleansing itself. However, t...
The interesting thing about demilitarization is that, like militarization, it could feed on itself once it was underway.
The 1985 world military expenditure — $940 billion — exceeded the total income of one-half of mankind.
MOTHER: Do you mean that if a country's demilitarization is successful in turning its economy around, its neighbors might feel less threatened and follow its example?
BROWN: Possibly. But it may not have anything to do with whether a country feels threatened or not. As I've said, China decided to cut back on military expenditures, reduce its army, and shift resources into the civilian sector, and these actions weren't contingent upon any negotiation or arms reduction with the Soviet Union. In fact, the Soviet Union has been militarizing even as China's been demilitarizing. At some point, the Soviets may also say to themselves, "What are we so concerned about?" Or, of course, Washington may decide that building up a huge military machine doesn't make sense anymore. I think it's obvious that militarization cannot continue at the current rate. If we keep increasing the share of the global economy being used for military purposes, then there's not much hope for mankind. Apart from the risk of blowing the world up at some point, we'd eventually divert so much investment capital, scientific resources, and management know-how from the nonmilitary sector that economies would begin to deteriorate throughout the world. In many ways, we're on a self-destruct course now.
MOTHER: But what about the power structure that makes money on armaments?
BROWN: There's a very strong and effective arms lobby in the world today, and it's not limited to the United States, but it certainly has reached a level of development here that we've not seen before. That lobby won't be easy to overcome, but people are going to have to say, "We've had enough. We just don't want to keep spending more and more on defense and cutting back on education, health, agriculture, and social programs across the board." And I think we may be approaching that point.
In fact, I think we're going to have to become, as a society, much more politically active than we have been. If we're concerned about what's happening with acid rain, if we're concerned about what the arms race is doing to the economy, if we're concerned about the possible linkage between the use of fossil fuels and climate change, then I think we have to become politically active in order to bring about changes in policy that will help sustain the economy over the long term.
Page:
<< Previous 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 | 9 |
10 |
11 |
Next >>
